so we will see if that ends up being part of the deal. host: what about the gop pledge are not raising taxes? how does that? now i play to the party? in 2010, the tea party drove a number of candidates to substantial gains in that dynamic played itself out. >> that dynamic played itself out in the new congress. there was a near-government shut down at one point. now, as we get to the 2012 season, we see the tea party not having the same level of influence in terms of those races. before hand, speaker boehner had a hard time getting some of his more conservative members to buy in to certain concrete hiatt -- compromises. going forward, we will have to see if the tea party conservatives will seem to have the same support. the president now has the upper hand and when he talks to

speaker boehner he will have to take that message back and he gets a little bit more behind him. >> week and a shop with a meeting between the leaders and the white house. what is the dynamic? >> it will be very interesting to see. hopefully we will hear from them exactly what their conversation was with the president. it is unlikely that we're going to see a detailed agreement on specific issues. are we going to hear about tax breaks or how entitlement reform is going to happen in the deal? on not sure. these figures are going to be out there. they're all going to be scrambling to set the tone in the way that they want to set it. of they will have discussions like the democratic leaders also say let these are the areas where we made clear to republican leaders where we are not going to budge.

>> thank you for your time. >> the country is changing and changing. but that is i think not the reason the president won re-election. the american people think about what the president was

offering. in terms of a direction on social issues and economic issues and the road we traveled. they spent a lot of time thinking about the future. in the next four years who can i trust on the economy, social issues. and we are in a country that is divided politically. our victory in 2008 was an exception to that when we won by what is considered to be a landslide. it was clear that this election would be closer given the economy and the traditions of the country. with that said maybe not a landslide but a clear majority. popular vote now is approaching 3% which is a healthy margin. i think the reason we won is that people understand where we have been economically.

this is not something that is an academic feeling. we continue to recover from the economy. i think they said does that mean i am satisfied? i think people thought that we are back and tried some of the same economic policies that led to the recession in the first place. i think there was a sense on issues like injury and the environment. they had a vision where we have competition in places like china, germany and india. if we are going to have a thriving american century we

cannot come in second place to those countries in the new technology industries of the future and i think that plays an important role. you know the obama vision was one where they thought better suited the country. and there is no question on social issues. whether it is women's health care, immigration, gay rights. there are a set of issues particularly for younger voters so, people vote very, very carefully. the economy was a dominant issue. i think that is why ultimately some people chose the president to continue the journey we are on. now quickly in terms of democracy, you know we don't know this for sure, but we could be seeing very different elections.

that of that in 2010, 14, maybe 18 will be quite a bit different. the comments i made two years ago were predicated on what we thought would happen in a presidential year. the latino turnout was surging. president winning more of the latino votes but even winning the cuban votes. you saw young votes exceeding the turnout from four years ago surprising most analysts. you saw african american turnout. you saw the excitement of the first african american president was four years ago. you saw a real determination there to support the president. you have to understand the changing american electorate to understand american politics.

the states that are the four happiest -- the president won all four of them. it is a much more complex dynamic because the president won swing suburban voters and swing suburban women all over the country. the share of the latino votes increased in battle ground states like virginia and iowa and florida. how we won 332 votes is complicated. it is not just one thing. we will talk about what that means for politics going forward. one thing i learned is better not overlearn lessons that just happened because our country and our politics are changing so very, very rapidly. the important thing now the

election is over, hopefully we will have a moment in washington where the lead 76ers will come together and the issues of fiscal policy, job creation and education and immigration and energy, that is no longer the looming issue of we have a re-election. that is done. barack obama has run his last campaign. you have a divided government. the one mandate the american people are sending is a mandate to work together which is focused on us. do not focus on what divides you as politicians, focus on us. i don't offer misplaced optimism often. when you are in washington you can get pessimistic really quick. but i think there is a pathway on immigration reform, a long-term debt reduction deal. continued education reform. that is really the test to the president and lead 76ers in the

senate and the house. can they come together post election. for a period of time put your needs and the needs of the country first. i have a great deal of confidence that we will do that. [applause] >> thank you for having me back. it is great to be back at the university of delaware and thank you for coming. when we look at this election in 2012 republicans should not be diluted about this. this is a big night for the detectives. also look across the country in the u.s. senate. i will quote john mccain -- it

is always dark before it is completely black. if you look at the election there are a couple of things that are just outstanding to focus on. the last presidential candidate who achieved 60% of the white vote in the country is president george walker bush. mitt romney with 60% of the white vote in the country is defeated pretty resoundingly. in the 2004 bush campaign we received 44% of the latino vote. we were having discussions in the white house in 2005 that we were were able to get majority status with latino voters in the country. if you look at the election results you can really see the republican party throwing down

the graphic in the country paying off. and so, when we look at it as a party and we look at the demographic changes in the country in the mountain west. we also give consideration that some of the fastest-growing latino populations came from north carolina and not necessarily the southwest border states and states in the rocky mountain west. we have now given up as republicans five u.s. senate seats in two elections because the nominees in those seats were unqualified to serve in the united states senate from an intellectual and knowledge level and from a social extremism level. their candidacies were rejected

not just by swing voters, but by a lot of republican voters as well. if you look now at the functional majority of democrats in the u.s. senate republicans should understand that when you nominate people like murdoch in indiana, todd aiken in missouri. christine o'donnell. is it possible to advance a conservative agenda in the country. in order to advance a conservative agenda you need to be able to win elections. let's talk about this idea of conservatism tonight. conserves for too many voters have become the same as absolute loonyness over the last couple of election cycles.

and we have a problem in the republican party that the democrats had to deal with in the 1970's and 1980's when our policy makers and our elected political lead 76ers are scared to death to stand up and the party of the republican party, that is the conservative entertainment complex. conservativism is a serious governing philosophy that served the country well over its history. conservatism is not a personality where we combine who is and is not a conservative over outrageous radio hosts. the mark of a true conservative is not fidelity that rush limbaugh bullying and calling that young lady a slut. it is time for our policy lead

76ers and elected officials to stand up and say that enough is enough. until we change the tone we will have a very difficult time even getting to first base with voters. if latinos don't think you as the elected lead 76ers of the party, you will not hear your message on economic growth or your message on education reform. they will simply stop at the place where they don't like us very much so i won't listen to them. an important problem that we have is if you were to play a word association game with our elected leadership in the congress and you were saying latino. the answer would be illegal immigrants as opposed to lieutenant colnel or doctor or silver star winner or teacher or mayor or governor. until the republican party can begin to talk to this community

through a prism of respect, understand the contributions that they make make the country a stronger place and the strength of the country has been in part because we will have a really difficult time. i have been married for 12 years. and outside of my marriage, in a country of 330 million people i have no idea how any other american uses birth control with the exception of rick santorum. i don't know why he think its is an urgent national security issue and why the republican party is doubling down on issues like this. it is a serious moral position. i think the fact on this issue the country is closely divided,

and there is no evidence to suggest that it would disqualify the elected president of the united states but surely we must understand the position. particularly suburban and young women do not want to hear lectures on contraception from old white republicans. we are the women in government party. we see it too often from the leadership in washington a version of big conservatism where the government is peering through the windows into matters of sexual orientation, lifestyle choices and contraception. when you have people talking about the individual mandate and screaming about tyrany and we are on 1,000 years of

darkness. at the same time we are voting in people in state legislatures that are mandating -- it does not add up or make sense and it is being rejected and it will continue to be rejected across the country. if you look at the increasingly extreme social agenda by republican candidates, i ask you this question. how can we possibly win in a state like colorado legaling marijuana when the candidates are out there talking about legitimate rape. it can't be done? we have a lot of soul searching to do as a political party on this issue on these issues. we also have to understand as republicans when we think about the middle class in this country. what was our offering in this election to the middle class voter?

it is a real issue. wage stagnation in the middle class is a real issue. declining opportunities in the middle class. what is our answer to it? certainly we are not go to create economic growth on the platform of getting rid of medicare for everyone under 50 years old. a popular program. but the message is all stick and no carrot. we don't have a former vision of economic growth, how to grow and sustain it that is in the interest of the middle class. we paid a tremendous penalty for that over the course of this, over the course of this election. so, the republican party has a demographic problem. it has a message problem. it has a policy problem. and then the execution of the campaign it has a technology program. the obama campaign in 2012 was 10 light years ahead from a

technology perspective in being able to identify voters, target voters and turn out voters than the republican party through this defeat is going to need to go through a cycle to catch up and to pass the democrats in our ability to do that over the next couple of years. lastly i will say that when you look at the republican party tonight on issues of gay marriage to immigration, education reform, republicans have always thrived when we have embraced our small government and our limited government and the principles of federalism which have endured and have served the country well over over two centuries.

as we look ahead i think it is important for us to have some optimism that we will have governing officials who solved real problems, solutions to issues that are health care reform or education reform or how to grow the economy that are consistent with the actual solution to the problems we face today. it is on our ability to reach them through the prism of mutual respect, tolerance and understanding. and the more tolerant that came from the talking heads in the republican party, the more we will continue to be shut off, shut down and not even be able to be in a position in order to

understand the party needs to meet voters where they are and not the other way around. bill clinton was a figure in the democratic party that rebranded and changed the party's image. the republican party, it remains to be seen who our bill clinton will be. we will have a incredibly difficult time winning elections for the foreseeable future absent an ability to communicate in a much more effective way. thank you very much.

>> i want to thank both of you for coming up here tonight. you can see all of us here in delaware are very appreciative. [applause] i know we want to talk about the future, and we have to do that. but there are a few things we need to clear up about what happened in the election. i want to ask each of you whether there were ah-ha moments or oh, s -- moments in the course of the campaign. david, you were watching the first debate, i am sure, probably glued to the television set. how many minutes into the debate to realize it was an o.s. moment? >> i figured you would go there. i was joking earlier talking to some of the students.

in some respects this was inevitable to happen. i think with the history of presidential incumbents, president bush's first debate with senator kerry. >> an inspiring performance. >> yes. unmitigated disaster. even president clinton's first debate wasn't one of his strongest in 1996. president reagan had a debate that even though he had a huge lead the race really narrowed and he needed a second debate. president carter had one debate in 1980. ronald reagan decisively won that. we did not want to continue

that sad and torn history. it is not like we were naiive about the challenge. for a lot of reasons, not all of them, you know we did not execute. strategicly, myself and others could have done a better job. the president said that he had an off night. it is not like we had one glaring mistake. but not a solid performance. governor romney had a strong performance and we knew that. even when he took a flyer against ted kennedy. he dominated the debate performance. we knew it was a strength of governor romney. just showing up on the stage and, you know, he was going to come out of the debate like that. we knew that. he was too low.

romney is always go to get 47 and 48 and 49 in states like virginia and florida and virginia. we were not go to win the first debate. he was the only person on that stage that had something to gain out of the first debate. but obviously we had a poor performance and he had a very strong performance. we said it publicly and most did not believe at the time. i think it is now the truth. the race did not fundamentally change. all of the things that happened is the gains governor romney would have made slowly over october, he would have kept gaining ground and the race would have gotten closer. he accelerated those games. they thought that they were go to win. but the structure of the race

never really changed. the nine battle ground states that we identified. the nine battle ground states this year, we fought in all of them all throughout october. we had a much better chance of getting a win. the 47% on the other hand was something coming out of the republicans i think did not put on a terrific convention. the mccain campaign had a much better campaign. at 47%, that was something that was an o.s. moment on the other hand. >> after the first debate, despite what you just said about the fact that you anticipated a result continuing in that direction anyway, maybe it all happened at once. did you have to make any sharp adjustments or did you say at that moment did you say don't worry about it. this is where we are going

anyway. we are fine? >> we had to make sure we did not have another first debate. that was mission number one. but that was during the debate. so, we knew what we had to do. we obviously had to prepare for a romney that was fairly elastic. you know debates are not the president's best. he did well but did not dominate the debates. in 2008 we lost more debates than we won. presidential politics are like a decathlon. you have certain events you are strong in. say the high jump was a debate. this is not one we would win. we just had to get enough points. we won the second debate and dominated the third debate.

they really looked at them. people said ok, we think the president -- they were very curious about whether it was an off night. within the first five minutes of the second debate voters said ok, he is back. it was a challenging period. for about two weeks there, we were the gang that couldn't shoot straight. there were a lot in the media that thought romney was on his way to the presidency. >> you were not in the campaign strategy room at that moment, but at what point when you first heard that tape come out, what was your immediate reaction? i would love to be a fly on your blackberry watching the emails come in.

>> it is really a remarkable statement when you think about it. of cortse when you make a statement like that, and there are categories of -- i will come back to that. >> i will come back to that. >> we tend to call unfortunate statements in the campaign misstatements. when you listen to it, you understand that it was given with fierce conviction and absolutely articulate. you know frankly if you get a room full of republicans all together and you are on your second bottle of wine, that is where the conversation goes. not the first time i have heard that. it is just so fundamentally untrue. >> you are not saying -- >> no. i am saying he meant it. that this is a part of a modern

perception of the country from the insular republican world through the conservative entertainment complex is what republicans are saying to each other. it first off, if you look at that 47%, it's always a bad idea if you're running for president of the united states to attack 47% of the country. this is a top line matter. but secondly, there's a name for a lot of that 47%. and it's republicans. and the reason that that 47% doesn't pay federal income taxes, for example, is because of the earned income tax credit. you're talking about not only a lot of retirees, you're talking

about the enlisted corps, the united states military. it was an awful statement. i think he paid a tremendous price for it. just as a -- just as you conceive of a presidential campaign, you don't want to push people out in a way. it's not a zero sum game where in order to get ooh plus one we're going to stigmatized 47%. politics is a game of competition. this is what the obama administration knows so brilliantly. how do we get a majority of the vote? and if you look at that coalition that's been asenled, i suspect it will be endured. but that was a profoundly bad moment for the romney campaign

in this election. >> david mentioned 47%. it was coins -- coincidental. you said the 47% mr. romney was referring to was republicans. is that coincidental? >> what it demonstrated is a fundamental misunderstanding of the country he wanted to lead that's what that statement showed, right? and a lot of those 47% -- what was he saying in the statement? what he was saying is that there's 47% of the country. i've got to write those people off because they're not paying federal income tax and because they're not paying federal income tax. they're a bunch of takers. you all -- it has great sound effects by the way with the china. but you in this room, you're the makers, right.

you're being victimized by the takers. there's nothing i can do so forget about it. it was a disaster. in fact, a lot of people in that-% are, in fact, if base of the -- the base of the republican party. >> david? >> i think if the republican party would have listened to what steve said in his opening comments they would begin to rehabilitate themselves quickly. i think there is going to be a civil war between, you know, the view of people like steve and the view of some in the entertainment complex and the hard right. i really thought up here, i'm not going to say a single challenging thing about governor romney. but it was reported that he thanked some of his donors, the nice thing to do. he said ha the reason he lost

was that the president had given gifts, his word "gifts" to young people in the form of student lones and student lone repayment policy. gifts to the latino community by saying if dream act kids would not be deported over the next couple of years. so that sends a fundamental misreading about what happened. paul ryan said yesterday, the reason we won is we did well in urban areas. ok. we won wisconsin. we won jamesville his hometown by 4 points and he lost it by 10. it's not an urban area. so it's disturbing within eight days that there's still this thing about that gift, gift to contraception to women.

if that's your diagnose and it has eerie echos of the 47%. again, to the thing of soul searching. governor romney's obviously going off the stage. others that will be facing voters in 2014, 20 service will be most prominent in deciding a direction. i think that that would be concerning to anybody out there in the republican party is thinking, ok, how do we get more square with the country as it exists today? >> because we just talked about these two episodes, moments in the campaign and there were others in the campaign. i think technology played an interesting role in both of those moments. i would love to hear that in just a moment. for example in a previous era, the 47% videotape might not have been made or it might have been an audiotape only and then it would have been leaked to, i don't know, you know, the new york times or those washington post or some other newspaper or whatever, the "l.a. times" maybe.

and experts would have been -- excerpts would have been published. so i would love both of you to comment on the role that the ability to make and immediately and infinitely contribute the entirety of these kinds of moments has had on the campaign and likewise on the debate on the first debate moment, i know my students were kind of in a little faith book bubble that night commenting on the debate. it was prettyiness tains you that people were realizing something's combing on and it gets distributed and a narrative of the interpretation of what was happening to the president was going out there right away. i don't want to frame this too much to you but to what extent do you think the ability to capture and dribblet infinitely these otherwise moments that might less important in this campaign have had in this

election. do you think it's been the same thing for a long time. >> what i would say about it it is that it's outside of the campaign's control. all of this happening organically. it's no longer top-down. it is surround. and it is bottom up. and there is no private space anymore. so, you know, it's a time-honored tradition of going to one group and saying something completely different you can't do anymore. when you try to do it, you'll be caught, you'll be exposed and your character will be revealed and in a lot of instances, it will have a negative consequence. but for sure when you look at the campaigns and what catches on, the campaigns to a fundamental degree have lost control of the ability to control the message and to control the dialogue, you know?

everybody with a facebook page, everybody with a twitter account has an ability to weigh in and to shape the narratives and the story. so the ability to navigate that raging river so to speak and go with the flow is an important aspect of a presidential campaign. >> and you said that you thought the republicans were 10 light years -- >> i think it's on a different issues, on the voter turnout issues, the republicans software crashed on election day. i guarantee you, how many engineers did you have working on the campaign? >> dozens. >> dozens of engineers. i mean, we don't -- we have a bunch of guys on the basement of the r.n.c. in washington and so we need to really -- where the republicans should start right now is a top to bottom review of what happened in this election. let's do a full-scale audit. let's understand what the obama

campaign did. what's disturbing about romney and ryan's comments is the degree to which they will compete inside the conservative media because, in fact, it did not happen. we've already lost the election, right? that's over. it's about the next election now. so you want to start with an intellectually honest appraisal of what happened in the coalition. what parts of their coalition are we able to pick off. who can we reach? what messaging can we use to reach them. what policies can be used to reach them. so you have want to have a top to bottom review of what happened. you want to look at d technology that they used to turn out the vote and say not only do we want to equal that. you want to surpass it. if you delude yourself into believing that as romney and ryan said that the outcome of the election was determined for what they said it was, you don't have an election.

taking your first steps to building a team to win the next election we're still going in the wrong direction. and that's the bad side of it. >> first of all, video is king. it used to be not too long in politics that there was a new york story. this is how whitewater started, for instance. >> water gate. that it would drive the debate and coverage. now a days if it doesn't have a video component, it doesn't go anywhere. because it doesn't get on cable news this hours a day. and it's not reshared and refreeted video. what made it so powerful is obviously there is a video component. i think the setting matters. the best ads that we ran many the campaign were comparative. some might say narrative were

ones that used governor romney's own words. when he he talked about the 47% there were no words. they weren't some interpretation. another thing about technology, in 2009, i think we have good data. we used the internet well, we used e-mail well. the world's change completelied. so much of the campaign this time had to be going around social networking blaws that's where people had to be is spending time. in this year we would send the u.s. a list. make sure you call your friends in battleground states and tell them to vote. >> this time some of you probably got these motion sadges if you have someone who's a friend in ohio or virginia you've got a message. weep in technology.

>> how did you know they had a facebook in hie? >> we just did. i'm not one of the english sheers. it wasn't perfect but it made a big deal. my wife called me, i just got a message if -- if your sister was going to vote? we're fine. that was another piece of evident that you know what we are doing. until the debate whether it's twitter or face book, both the media says they're doing well, who made a mistake? who didn't? ha's something that you have to understand. whether it's a convention, a debate, you're -- people are not going to look ate wholistically, you know? there's going to be a consensus

that emerges. we knew it wasn't going well. but the referee's had decided that mitt romney already was having an excellent night and we are having a terrible night. it's going to be hard to sake people off that consensus. in every way. i think that's one of the biggest challenges of the romney -- they really thought they were going to win. part of it is because they were living in an alternative universe. how could barack obama get re-elected snm they thought this election was going to be more like 2008 than it was in 2008. if that's what you thought then you would be confident. because you, you know, if the election happened amongst your vortes we would have had a very difficult time winning. but the election was more like 2008 than 010. think about that. our campaign from 10 to 12 had changed on so many ways.

facebook is the way people want tom enghage projects. it's becoming a fossilized things for a ltd. of people. the thing i'm sure is the number between 16 and 20. that will be huge progression in terms of technology. i think they're going to be very, very much advanced. >> i want to get to questions from our audience. i wasn't to ask you both to define something that you've talked about each of you null your own response. steve called it the conservative entertainment complex. you just called it the alternative universe. but could you just sort of briefly and it doesn't have to be both of the you. >> exactly what are you talking about? what was going on? how would people in this room know that they were living in an alternative universe.

how would they be aware of that. >> it's not you. many people said he would be giving instructions during the debate. >> if they want to con contract any imagine of their opponent that is not grounded in reality are one is the robbie campaign had an unrhealicic view of what the elect triss was going to be. certainly one of the reasons they wanted to see in the election. but there's this view of barack obama. you know, that if you just read and watch the entertainment complex. how on earth could this guy be re-elected?

ruzz because you're socialist. and we're not honest. but that's now not how most of america beats the government. most of us don't see us that way. so that is the problem. i think it's under estimating of your opponents' strength and the reality in ferm of how pool view them. there was riches and ridicule that i don't understand the election. i know it played a zeep impact. listen, as i said, our party has gone through that gfer. and obviously owe 51% of the done fri. i will take any one of the number of the criticism of president obama. and there arish shoes that as republicans i just disagree with. however, you go back to mitt

romney's book, what was the title snl "no apology" right, inferring that the president runs around the world apologizing for america not true that never happened. the birther conflict. that he was an alien imposter in the oval office. he's a socialist, he's a marxist. all of this deranged nonsense had a terrible impact not on the president but on republicans. for anybody out there that thinks that mitt romney running around with donald trump was good -- gut out to colorado and start smoking it.

[applause] it is -- it is -- it is has been for four years write this utter and complete nonsens about tb president spewing forth. we now live in a media universe where there's the ability to have alternative fag chull reality. in the case of this election, it really impacted in a negative way, i think on republicans. we would have been much better off running against the real president obama as opposed to the sinister pro-tend president obama. and the total lack of credibility with some of this stop is just sloolt repel lent. when you will look at the demographics whole is rush

limbaugh talking at. he is looking. it's not what the country looks like anymore. >> you have knees williams host:s -- and you have a lot of it poisonous. mark levine, number three, number four rye host. a man known for his se sen sen si. he told her -- he asked her if she had a ghun the house. she said get the gun out, put it through your heads and get up. so you have this terable down actually actually based. let's stop that spewing out. we have the impact with which

you've seen with these petitions that are being vooveled. or you know, the people that are all over the blogoss fear or media zpeer talking to it just totally out of proportion with the response. >> we're going to your questions and we'll stick to the dra addition of having a student allege terter -- alternating. >> i've been wasming -- watching. i understand the republican beater to a degree that ied a mit i'm a native californian. i didn't get how come this dialogue of really talking to each other without screaming at each other so that we can have some sort of understanding. we we have a dialogue when pull

we're not screaming at one another? hope so. i think when you look at our moll ticks and you look at some of the dysfunction and washington. and now we have the fiscal clim issues that are opened. it's remarkable to think about it. it's not a we're 408, 50 days a way. you see a lot of tesh lens over the next few months but this is a political crisis, not an economic crisis. but for the entire history of the country people dom profoundly agree with each other, excuse me, pro pound lip diss greep with i didn't do the lowest of the american people and that's what -- there are

tremendous market incentives to people for to go on tv to attack each other, to assault each other verbally and you make a lot of money doing that. for the most part, modern reasonable voices aren't rewarded with media platforms. and you see a tone and i think that this is a large every cultural issues. it managed irts. on facebook on the comments and on the she rums. you know the vie tri y'all anonymously quist quite incredible. my view of it is that one of the things we stopped doing in this country, really at an educational level and in thur,

is we've stopped teaching siv -- civics, understanding that both party have served the country well and the competition between the parties to advance the country forward. it's a very bornt part of the my life. he said in this country we don't have political enemies. we have political opponents. i think it would be good if there was a renewable of tradition na ke we understand even to beam that we zpwee -- that we are all bound together and we have much more in common than our differences no matter how profound they might be on

the ideological statement. >> question from a student? >> yes, ma'am. >> notoriously, thest amount of money spent. yet, the touffer out was lower. to me that sounds counter sbue tiff. they expect every lower turnout as there is ever greater trading. >> the exeaexe is about produce lower turnout. is there a connection between the amount of money spent on television adds and the turn out or david? >> what's thrir millions of votes to be counted. so the expectations when all the voys will be the same as

2008. so in nine statements we ran a campaign. in 41 states, we did not. in the 9 states most of them go higher. where the companies >> on the ground. where there was volunteers knocking on the door. you try to vegster and turn out voters. so i think that's a good sign which is the people in ohio and vnk and florida and colorado and november. they understand the unique role that i have to play. they understand the date that a lot of their fellow citizens don't get to enjoy your sirpe pack dynamic was new and unprecedent.

they had $ho million spent not by the opponent but by the super pac. we had $100 million spent by the president in nine states, $100 million on the air which is more than what mccain spent in its entirety. >> i think house races had an impact because barack obama, sherrod brown, governors, they had some definition. so that outside spending is a little less nefarious. it's still tough to deal with. but if you're not known it's going to be an imact about this. there's a term about politics which is the amount of television you buy.

it means the average viewer sees the ad 10 times. in this election the republicans super pacs were at 9,000 or 10,000 points. i spent a lot of nights in hotel rooms there. and you turn on to tell vision. it was wall to wall political act and in many of those markets you see two or three ads. there is strong differences on this but we had one individual, one spend 100 million on the presidential direction. one person will try. there will be soul searching on the republican side. it had all this money. i don't think it's going away.

but this is a big question in 2016, the democrats and republicans who were thinking about running for president, unless something changes, hadley, the first question will not be how many volunteers can be put together. what -- without it you won't be able to survive. mitt romney won his nomination. if he hadn't mad a soup every pack we would have been running -- if he hadn't made every morning pack -- think about that. it's not about -- for us because wham were their platforms. i've not saying those candidates will have to deal with those issues. if you don't have a super pac game that's huge, you are not going to be able to win your

party's nonl nation. and that's a disturbing strent agree. still in kind of come activity campaign in the country, the man or woman running for office has the smallest voice in the race. it's true when you have senat races. h. it's true even in the presidential ways. >> is this kind of technique that was honed and endorsed by the supreme court. this election will have an affect on issue campaigns as well. are we going to find super pacs that are going to influence the outcome of legislation? , tax code reform orthopaedic,. i think it will probably be

more electoral vote. listen, so many can co that. they can write a check to try and control congress. it's a poisonous thing for our country. in mitt romney's campaign for many of the weeks, it was not the romney campaign. it was these super pacs. in our campaign it was the obama campaign. we may be the last presidential campaign to be able to say that. >> all right. question from a student? yes, ma'am. >> is there any possibility that they might being able to produce some sort of way to stopping money in the future campaigns? >> the question is given how popular the super pacs are, is

there any way to stop them? >> i think we've had a 30-year campaign regime in the country that has fried to characterize. some of this is good money. so of this is bad money. we will try to determine what's good or bad. that will factor in all of the campaign laws. it was toteably productive. despite me working for sean mccain finance force position which i felt was unconstitutional. but what we've done is we've weakened the political party. and the political parets have been moderating shunes. -- the advancement of an

ideology is secondary, you know, it's a function of the majority. but now with all of the super pac, money. it's increasingly logical money. recomban talked with me by 80% of the time, you're not my opponent, but you're an l.a. you'll sigh the enforcement of ideological discipline through the use of the super pac in a primary on either the left or the right. so it has the effect, i think of polarizing the electoral and afghanistan with regard to political money and speech, the only way you can fetch this is to allow maximum contributions

by fifpblg but it's got to go to the campaign committee. because the amount of money that's flowing through this outside groups is not -- a single individual, it's totally undepiss closed. playing to the tune of $50 million, $60 million. truly you wanted something. you can't dress it up as well, i just love my done drip and this is the path i want to go down. [laughter] >> but it is -- it seems to me the way you want to do is put the accountibility in the campaigns. i don't know how else to think about fixing it. but it is an enormous problem.

>> considering that the candidates and members of crank benefits from it what do you think of the chances of refining any of this? >> there's only a selected nimple of ongses citizens you nitesd son-in-law part of the issue here. you you have a constitutional amendment constitution complex. what's interesting is you've seen both republicans and democratic members of congress in the wake of all this super pac spending plauns in plare on the outside. because it is this uncontrollable beast out there. and you've got people saying i'm going to take this person out. it's because they have an agenda. the people who will be most harmed way in are people who

just stick to party line. someone will come in and say here's your $. the only way we're going we're going to have parties, both party lts have to take some heat. and if you're worried about these super pacs? some guy will dake that step but will give people boss. but it's a big concern. and i think a lot of people want to be in control of their own destiny. the fact that they are beginning secondary characters. i think both parties will become increasingly unfertskble. new gingrich sponsored by sheldon adelson. running for president.

but it would be adelson supporting. >> this is from a night student. this is if zeeveziss mitt. >> you. >> what's your opponent of the grover grover no tax wist? >> on the issue, it is true that we are at a mistoirk low of revenue to g.d. and it has to come up because the country with $16 trillion in debt where both countries that to be fixed. we have to get on to a seuss tainable economic pitt. snow in essential principle of conservatives, garry goldwater

said. but definite reduction first. does he have to pay the bills? you to have a prescription medicare cover, you have to pay for that too. and so we should understand something about the republican party over the last 10 years. it's been a big spending party. it just doesn't want to pay for any of the -- pay for any of the spending. so a reset of traditional conservatives requires that we be reality based on the fiscal condition of the country and understand that the years of progresslegacy now career -- require it. as opposed to their oath of

office to the constitution -- [applause] it is unsettling. and we should understand there's not imtri between the parties on this question because sthrs no nover nordqvist and the democratic party on this question. it's exiletting to hear about show-off increasing the loopholes. my personal opinion is that -- and with, you know, it's why i'm a republican in part because a ho% tax rate. that's an awful lot of money to take out of the your paycheck. i want to see a more competitive, a plattering, broader tax system. and i believe thea the purpose of the tax couthcoid as a republican is not to create equality.

it's not to decide who gets the share of an every shrinking pie. it's to collect a revenue to operate the government. we should do it in the most efficient way possible. clearly when you look at the consequences of going over this fiscal cliff, they're going to have to aber gate that. it's not down to a pp% tax rate. that's not one of the immutable principles of mernl -- americans. we want taxes to be as low that is they could be. and in structural ben fits. so you're going hear republican meters and meet the president to get the country's fiscal path tosome van si.

>> david, do you want to comment about what you expect next weeks. whatever time it is. i -- there are limits to what you can say. how do you sigh? playing out between now and january? >> well, i think general, now steve's exactly right, although you are seeing vsh conservative, gigging on no revenues at all. mr. republican centers say i can get into a lot of the details. you're going to have an entire fiscal package. we are not signing an extension of the bush tax cuts for the wealthy. [applause] but we do want to extend them -- we well, we extent them for

everything. le% of americans will see no tax increase. even if you're making 500 or 750, you will have a tax cut. you know, i noit there are some even at my party who were trying to second that fiscal cliff. so on the -- the media questions, we want to extend them for moat people. what we also want to do is tax reform. it produced lower rates even for the wealthiest. the president called for. by making the tax clothes simple, and there's a certain anlt of revenue that will put us on the right fiscal pass. there's the number.

that you know, any bowles, simson any of the fiscal efforts should not be in there. we want to enghage comprehensive back story. medicare, medicaid. these are cheap coverage. there's other spending we have to cut. and so i think where the big bottle next right nowl is the big -- and do some tough things. you know, the notion that somehow that these deficits are not a threat to our national security on our economic future is something i could not disagree with more strongly. there are some -- maybe not so much in our party but we have

to deal with this. think about this by the way the debt ceiling. i happen to believe,i'm not an economic in traying. we have to understand as all of you would be a great one for our economy. we are not growing fast enough. if we can actually for the bist community say we have our fiscal house noshed for a 20-year peerled. -- period. it will set the conditions for our growth to be even stronger. but this is is going to get hair. this is big stakes the death seem seal. but in some ways it's a little moreer more fouse. this means everybody in the country gos up.

1,000 dollars out of the pockets of most americans. we could bbt more serious. i remain confident because the stakes are so high because $nees phone deadlines. i think what we need to depo is let's go for the big deal the first time in a long time our country in in the right fiscal way. the only way to do that is for the it and they're going to have to do some tough things. and snale be in that photo. we just want to have theish shew. er want to satisfied our base and that's paralysis and that's not clearly what the american people need right now. they need do do that but at the

end of the day they're going to get done. >> next question. right here. speak up, please. >> as the democratic daughter of two republicans, one of which got her bachelors and m.b.a. from the university of dway and very successful. how can he sell me on the republican physical policies that the republicans put forward in a way that i can see them as tangible and relateable to what i'm going to do as kind of which generation will accumulate this kind of deficit problem that you've smoking about our class. apreevement the question. how can you, mr. shlmit sell

her on the republican proposal. >> it may be going through your mivende a little bit he announced that president obama won unanimously. and that he was a democrat. [laughter] he told me that with, it's ok to be a democrat. but you must not eat like one. [laughter] [applause] look, for republicans, one of the things i was very curious with mitt romney, as someone who is outside of washington or had no ownership of any of the republican dysfunction, his

hands were absolutely pure on spendsing. he had the ability to rebuke republican spending and democratic. and i think that he was only credible in offering a criticism of spending under the administration if he was able to first talk about republicans sense in the area and that we were going in a new -- northbound a new direction. look, i think that -- you know, i think the republicans confused the word by the way, oversight and regulation." . sometimes we need regulation, sometimes weapon -- we need regulation. you watch a watch dog watching

everything. i don't care which industry sector you're in. but as a republican, i believe that a, lowering taxes is possible. as less regulation as possible, to do everything we can to help entrepreneurs. to help the job creator create jobs and believe that the private sector creates wealth, not wealth. government does have a roll in interacting with combizz. there are effective partners between zpwovet and industry. i'm not combens that. but we should billion able to deliberate the message that our policies were incredible claims. that our policies will lead to economic growth and that economic growth in the

middle-class -- what is our remedy for example that you'd talk to the base. we want to go back to first principles on some of this first stuff ufment and to come up with a platform that's an economic growth platform. to david's point, the debt that this country has is going to land squarely on you. and it's going to have a profoundly negative effect with regard to your opportunities and how the economy will grow if we don't get it under control. but, you know, one of the verdicts of the elect tort in thiser lenks is that the middle-class where he didn't do very well in this election,

there's a bunch of reasons for that. we need to get back to our drawing board, using our conservative strategy. what's marketable and sellable of the american people that speaks to their interests? >> this will be the last question. go ahead, sir. >> i don't know -- but to me it looks like a big player nart the outcome. cristy for how many to start with. >> if he looks like it sounded

like he was willing to work for obama. myy is did he play a part in the -- >> the question is did government on president obama in the tarmac after this election? >> unkenyably no. did somebody turn out to vote for the president in colorado who wasn't going to say no. we have the best data in american political mystery. the rates did not change presandy or postseason. number one, there was a set of boaters who have yet to make a decision. sandy was not at driver of boats. number two it could say you

dominated. you had a hard time munching some that may be one tactical concern. government noffer cristy was ging -- governor cristy, with any president who wouldn't have done the same thing, ought not hold office. your people are hurting. you need help and that's what we do as a country. it said something about our split cam situation that's a democratic president and figuring out how to work together is news. it's a remarkable thing. [applause] i think there's a lot of -- but it's alva liquid question. but you did see some in the

republican party and in the romney campaign say it was because of sandy. or it's because now we've given gifts to everybody. it's because the ush ban areas turned out. no, that's not why we won. we won because the middle-class believed the president's economic message would be better for them than governor romney's message. we did a lot of things in in campaign well. used technology. we had amazing volunteers. i know a lot of you were part of that. i want to thank you for that. they are the real heroes working hard. the reason we won is people had to put their thumb on scale. who do they trust more and they chose the president. it really did not -- we had a beat on this election. and leading into sandy and out of sandy, we didn't see any

change. our research in florida, this election was very rigid. romney dropped in september because of the 47%. but it was an unnatch -- unnatural jump. in states like ohio and colorado there were 3% or four 3rs of the election. and they are -- system soft them didn't vote. those that voted, didn't vote because of sandy. but i think -- we could use more of that. which is we could find opportunities to work together. just because it's the right thing for their citizens. >> could i ask you for a brief answer on the question of sandy? >> i mean, look, yeah, there's

a tendency in campaigns to say that the outcome was determined by the last thing that happened. as opposed to the accumulation of things that happen over a two-year period. just to name a few. we could look at our primary which is something that resembled a reality show. the only thing that was missing was these doors. we could talk about the 47%, the empty chair by clint eastwood. we can go on and on and on including mitt romney to attack in may. usually with 18 years head started, able to focus on things like that. you could look at the decision that we're going to horde our money until the end.

we will not allow it. and in fact, if you when you look at the romney combain, up of the moment of the first debate there hadn't been a decent moment since the price. he -- i looked into it as the abyss. in the case of chris kristy if this is one of the most dynamic leaders and popular country. so attacking chris cristy and blaming chris cristy sfr this, tarking off the table one of the solutions to the problems that we've talked about. and so chris cristy, web would be if we had another 10 cristies -- a dynamic leader

realized that he had one of the toughest partisans. he took an oath to the people of the state of new york. he was there with the president of the the united states, zoing his job. he ought to be applauded for it in the republican party. it was a huge day for republicans to co that. just a hue. -- >> just so you have the opportunity four years from now to list predictions that you make and show you both how right you are and sop on. i'm going to ask three candidates and ask you whether you think they're going to run in 2016, ok? >> since you raised it. is chris cristy going to run? >> i say yes. >> i awe sime yes. i understand this for

republicans, by the way. >> all right. how about joe biden? >> is he going the run in 2016? >> listen, i think that -- yeah, i'm not going to answer democratic questions. obviously, we just got done with the election. >> i know there's still fascination with that. >> that's next week. you're going to see people going iowa, new hampshire, and north carolina. they are the -- day jobs. he's a season of delaware. he has been the greatest son of dwamplete >> at both campaigns, it's interesting, he was jover shadowed palin and ryan. but in the campaign, he was just out there each and every

day, you know, the speeches weren't also covered by national caven there was left drang just delivering an economic message centered on the middle-class that was deeply affected. >> do you think biden's going run? >> no. >> you're not? finally hillary clinton. >> yes. smith and you're -- again -- [laughter] >> you know, listen, these are people with brithe political future if they decide to go down that president. >> ok.